​The Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that compassionate appointments are a one-time concession, not a vested right. This decision came after a petition sought an upgrade from a Class-IV to a Class-III post under compassionate grounds. The court emphasized that once a compassionate appointment is accepted, the benefit is considered exhausted, and cannot be used to claim higher or alternative positions .​

This aligns with previous rulings by other courts, including the Supreme Court, which have consistently held that compassionate appointments are meant to alleviate immediate financial hardship following the death of a government employee. They are not intended as a long-term employment solution or a means to secure higher posts. For instance, the Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court decision, noting that a 24-year delay in seeking compassionate appointment negated the very purpose of the scheme .​

Similarly, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a 25-year-old claim for compassionate appointment, reiterating that such appointments are not a right but a concession to address immediate financial distress .​

These judgments collectively reinforce the principle that compassionate appointments are exceptional measures, not entitlements, and should be claimed promptly following the employee’s death to fulfill their intended purpose.​

Sources